Australia's march to free speech has begun

The Australian constitution doesn't spell out its support for individual liberty, but slowly and reluctantly the High Court is recognising it as fundamental, writes Chris Berg.

The High Court's decision in Unions NSW vs New South Wales is one of the most significant decisions for democracy and human rights in Australian history.

It's on par with the 1951 decision which quashed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill.

It reveals a High Court inching - slowly, reluctantly, unhappily - towards a full-blown recognition of the human right to freedom of speech and freedom of association: the sort of uncompromising liberties expressly found in United States' First Amendment.

The decision was released just before the Christmas break. The High Court found that the New South Wales ban on organisations donating to political parties and third party political campaigning were invalid, as they violated the constitution's implied freedom of political communication.

I wrote about the NSW laws in The Drum in February 2012. They were a disgraceful and transparent manipulation of the electoral system designed to cripple the Labor Party and its union-centred funding model.

Of course, like all disgraceful and transparent manipulations of the electoral system, they were dressed up in woolly sentiments about enhancing democracy and reducing corruption.

It is a rare law that can unite in opposition the union movement, the Institute of Public Affairs, and environmental groups (the law was particularly damaging for federated bodies like the Wilderness Society).

But it's an even rarer law that can inspire the High Court to trigger its free speech veto.

In a series of cases in the 1990s the High Court discovered a 'freedom of political communication' buried ('implied') deep within the Australian constitution.

Of course, there are no words in the constitution that say any such thing, but in 1992 the High Court decided the freedom was in there.

The court's reasoning went like this. The Australian Constitution is a democratic constitution. A democracy is predicated on the free flow of communication about political issues. Therefore the document is predicated on the existence of some form of freedom to talk about politics - a freedom of political communication.

But, as the High Court has always at pains to say since, that freedom is not a general right to freedom of speech for individuals. It's not like the First Amendment. No, it's about protecting political communication - and political communication alone - from legislative interference. There's nothing in the Australian constitution to allow citizens to sound off on everything willy-nilly.

Over the past two decades, the court has kept its free speech lid screwed on pretty tight. In recent years it has declined to protect the speech of a group of sidewalk preachers in Adelaide, the Islamist Sheikh Haron, and Lex Wotton, one of the Palm Island rioters.

And rightly so. The court's foray into the political philosophy of democracy is embarrassingly underdeveloped. Our constitution isn't just a constitution for a democracy. It is a constitution for a liberal democracy - a country where free and morally autonomous individuals mutually consent to democratic government.

And that implies that those free individuals have rights as free individuals. Australian citizens are not just conduits for electoral debate. Adrienne Stone of Melbourne Law School makes this argument here. As she writes, there is a plausible - I would say fundamental and intrinsic - relationship between personal individual autonomy and liberal democracy. The former is the foundation of the latter.

If the High Court were to recognise this relationship, then the limited freedom of political communication could be transformed into a broader right to freedom of speech.

Twenty years ago the judiciary committed itself to divining political philosophy between the lines of the constitution. Perhaps it should not have started down this path. But now that it has, it should go where the path leads.

The Unions NSW case suggests they might be doing so. It is remarkable for a number of reasons.

First, the court has decided that the freedom of political communication applies to the states as well. That's a big deal. The previously strict bounds of the freedom are being pushed out.

The US Supreme Court only started imposing the First Amendment on state laws in the 1920s. Indeed, the First Amendment only really became 'activated' in the twentieth century. It had to grow into what it is today. Australian free speech rights are embryonic - but they're heading in the same direction.

Second, the court recognised that money can be speech. The way we spend our money is sometimes a form of political expression. This apparently horrifies many people on the left. But it is obviously true. It takes money to buy a T-shirt with a political slogan on it. It takes money to publish a book. It takes money to host a website. To ban the money is to restrain the speech that money was to bring about.

Finally, and most interestingly, the High Court's decision quietly suggested something very important, even revolutionary: corporations have as much right to speech as anybody else.

Of course corporations are not people. Corporate personhood is just a legal construct to facilitate contracts and lawsuits. Stop hyperventilating.

But corporations are made of people.

And just because people get together to form organisations doesn't mean they lose their rights once they have. As the Unions NSW case suggests, businesses, unions and non-profit groups have much in common. They are all voluntarily formed by individuals to achieve a collective goal. All legitimately participate in political life.

This is one of the reasons that the US Supreme Court is coming around to an understanding that there is no clear, coherent distinction between 'commercial speech' and regular speech.

Of course, Americans have a rich body of case law explaining the extent and limits of the First Amendment. Australia's free speech corpus is fragmented and arbitrary, and cripplingly limited by the High Court's reluctance to follow its own logic where that logic leads.

So it's still not totally clear what our freedom of political communication actually means. But after the Unions NSW case, we know that, whatever it means, it means a great deal.

Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. His most recent book is In Defence of Freedom of Speech: from Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt. Follow him on Twitter @chrisberg. View his full profile here.

Comments (244)

gnome:

31 Dec 2013 9:35:13am

The pollies like the idea of free political communication, little realising that it is a self regulating right, just as general free speech is.

Though it wasn't a lie at the time, Gillard's claim of no carbon tax under her government became the greatest broken promise ever in Australian politics a few days after it was made, because Gillard thought it would be to her advantage.

gnome:

31 Dec 2013 11:01:04am

It's nothing more than a general statement in favour of free speech because free speech is self-regulated. It supports free speech pre-emptively against folx like you who are on record in favour of collective rights over individual (human) rights.

It gives the example of Gillard being regulated right out of politics because of her abuse of the right.

whogoesthere:

31 Dec 2013 11:24:21am

Her problem wasn't a 'lie' at all, it was that is was an unpopular lie. If she'd said 'We're putting up the GST' and won, then said 'actually things are better than we thought so we'll leave it', I doubt she would have been regulated out because of a lie.

RayS:

01 Jan 2014 8:25:27am

Let's stop harping on the claim that Julia Gillard lied about the carbon tax. That alleged lie was the only one she was accused of and the carbon tax introduced was insignificant in its effects on Australians and effective in its intended purpose.

The current government has told nothing but lies (name one truth if anyone can) and its effects on Australians is already pushing us towards a recession. If they achieve their goal of weakening the Australian dollar the financial impact on Australian families will be far worse than the compensated carbon tax ever has been.

The ironic thing is that these incompetents guided by dinosaur vested interest simpletons are destroying local manufacturing with their "direct action" against car manufacturers while they still seek to push the Aussie lower - a total waste of time and a double lose. They have no coherent policy.

John:

01 Jan 2014 9:07:50am

Come into the cold light of the day, RayS.

Julia Gillard lied no less than three times in that one report about the carbon tax - and there is no "alleged" about it. She lied about offering Kevin Rudd her loyalty and support. She lied again about not mustering the numbers to defeat his first challenge.

Perhaps they were all "political" lies, acceptable to some degree in the cut-and-thrust of the political contest, and perhaps others would have done the same.

However, the latest revelations about the AWU matter are showing that there is a great deal to be uncovered there, and those won't be "political".

BkDw:

31 Dec 2013 12:09:01pm

If the High Court is moving towards removing the distinction between commercial speech and regular speech, there could be the implication that even political speech has some meaning beyond spin and hyperbole.

If we were to begin to be able to take business and politicians at their word with the same sort of implied contract meaning of regular speech, then there might also be the heady possibility of corporate and political ethics having some relationship to the regular concept of decent behaviour.

The nose:

31 Dec 2013 6:24:24pm

Australia's march to free speech? What Cris reall means is we are marching towards a ever encreasing monopoly of the Murdoch press? What is the point of having free speech when your voice cannot be heard!

Bill Daley:

Monty B:

31 Dec 2013 12:19:45pm

``It gives the example of Gillard being regulated right out of politics because of her abuse of the right.``

Well, gnome let`s see...

We are on a unity ticket on Gonski.We will stop the boats from day one.We will pay back the debt.We will not deal with the Greens.The NBN will be ?delivered cheaper and sooner`Will will be a government of no nasty surprises.

And that`s just the first 100 days.

Call it `being regulated out` or call it an election defeat. By whatever name the same fate awaits one term Tony.

bobtonnor:

Barge:

31 Dec 2013 1:19:53pm

We are on a unity ticket on Gonski - they are.We will stop the boats from day one - they did started stopping the boats from Day 1.We will pay back the debt - they will.We will not deal with the Greens - wrong quote. They would not enter into a power sharing arrangement with the Greens. They haven'tThe NBN will be ?delivered cheaper and sooner`- it will.

Kagey One:

31 Dec 2013 1:36:23pm

Barge... have you been paying attention? With the exception of the Greens stuff, all your claims have been demonstrated to be incorrect in the past 3 months.This is why "Phony Abbott" is such an appropriate epithet.

RosieA:

31 Dec 2013 10:36:54pm

"It supports free speech pre-emptively against folx like you who are on record in favour of collective rights over individual (human) rights".

What do you mean by collective rights? Isn't the problem not collective rights versus individual rights but rather conflict between individual rights? The problem is that we live in an interconnected world where what one says or does has consequences which are likely to impact on one or more other individuals. The law generally tries to balance the freedoms of one individual with those of the other.........for example, the freedom of one person to say what they want with the freedom of the other to not be subjected to verbal abuse or bullying. The freedoms of both individuals are equally important.

whatif:

01 Jan 2014 7:10:41am

who said he is no longer in politics, he has his head and nose into all of it, as for free speech, didn't our forebears die in the war to give us freedom and doesn't that include freedom of speech and isn't it the libs who over the years have tried to take that right away from us.

David:

Ravensclaw:

31 Dec 2013 11:23:01am

David, I am confused.

The pro Gillard position with their proposed Anti discrimination laws was that if someone was "offended" or "insulted" by someone else's opinion (even if the outrage i.e. offence or insult was fake), you are guilty of that offence until you prove your innocence.

I proudly take the pro human right and anti Gillard position on freedom of speech.

The Roxon Anti Discrimination Legislation that was heavily backed by Gillard was a sham. Any who supported this could not possibly give a rats about human rights.

Thankfully we now have someone in the Human Rights Commission that actually gives a rats about human rights i.e. Tim Wilson. You wouldn't have got that under a Labor Government.

Monty B:

31 Dec 2013 1:28:37pm

`You wouldn't have got that under a Labor Government. Thank god the adults are back in charge.`

Correct, we would not have. In fact we ought not have got that under any government.

Tim Wilson has no legal qualifications. He was not recruited through any normal competitive process of screening through an interview process or an expert panel. He was simply ushered into the role by George Brandis.

Sometimes grown-ups make grand promises about openness and transparency, then indulge in cronyism and partisan games.

Jimmy:

01 Jan 2014 9:04:50am

Tim Wilson has been at the helm of a political think tank that from its inception was designed to be a mouthpiece for the vested interests of people like Gina and Rupert . He has also been critical ( along with Brandis ) of a piece of legislation which was found to be effective in upholding the rights of individuals to be free from racial vilification . As a mouthpiece for vested corporate interest , the man had no right to have a position on ABC . I don't know how manny times I have to say this but I'm sure I'll have to say it again .. SECTION 18 C deals ONLY with offence and insult based on their RACE ! It is a racial vilification act ! You have no right to racially vilify somone , never have , never will .

the yank:

GraemeF:

31 Dec 2013 11:04:53am

Gillard promised a price on CO2 and we got one. We didn't get a tax.

The right wing defenders of 'free speech' took her words out of context and then proceeded to smear her from pillar to post using their vaunted 'free speech'. Pity is was only free instead of truthful.

John:

GraemeF:

31 Dec 2013 1:37:59pm

It was a levy on pollution.

If I take a load of rubbish to the tip I get charged by the weight of that rubbish. That is not a tax as I will not pay anything if I create no rubbish.

You do not understand what a 'tax' is. 'Everybody' called it the wrong thing. Abusing the English language, and basic comprehension of said language, is a standard right wing tactic. When facts go against you then make up your own. 'Trickle Down Economics' is a perfect example. It doesn't work but it is still trotted out by right wingers as the salve for the economy.

Percy:

31 Dec 2013 4:38:18pm

Now you're fiddling with the English language GraemeF.

You get charged a fee for the disposal of your rubbish at the tip. The Government wasn't disposing of any carbon dioxide. It merely fined businesses for their operations that previously they were not fined for. By all means, don't call it a tax if it makes you feel better. Call it a fine or a penalty that was introduced post election.

Explain to me how trickle down economics doesn't work when the wealth of virtually every Australian can be attributed to it in some way.

Percy:

01 Jan 2014 6:55:11am

It works in spite of those restrictions whogoesthere, not because of them.

"Without things like the minimum wage and OH&S laws we'd still be like Industrial England."

The wealthiest nation with the highest standard of living in the world? Sorry, couldn't help myself. I don't think anyone begrudges most OH&S laws, the majority of which have absolutely nothing to do with unionism.

v:

31 Dec 2013 5:46:57pm

Percy,

"You get charged a fee for the disposal of your rubbish at the tip. The Government wasn't disposing of any carbon dioxide."

No the government was not disposing of carbon-dioxide, but the council is charging you for the rubbish that YOU dispose of in the tip, not what IT disposes of. In the same way, the government introduced a fee to be paid by enterprises, to dump unwanted carbon dioxide into OUR atmosphere.

If you choose to avoid council rubbish disposal fees by dumping your rubbish on the street or in the bush, you may be subject to a fine. and I would expect that an enterprise attempting to avoid carbon-disposal fees by emitting carbon without purchasing the necessary permits would be subject to some form of financial sanction or "fine". But the carbon price was not a "fine" any more than it was a "tax".

You are correct in saying that the carbon price forced corporations to pay for something that they used to get for free,. But you could also say that the abolition of slavery forced slave owners to pay for something (human labour power) that they previously got for free. We do not consider the right to Liberty or our entitlement to fair wages as a "tax" on business, so why would we consider a fee for dumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a "tax"? Carbon pricing simply limits the externalisation of carbon-disposal costs by enterprises, and this should never have been allowed in the first place.

Percy:

01 Jan 2014 6:45:25am

v:

"but the council is charging you for the rubbish that YOU dispose of in the tip, not what IT disposes of"

The charge is to cover costs of machinery, labour, ground maintenance, power, water etc. it is not billing me for the dumping of rubbish, it is billing me for the cost it incurs in running a facility that allows me to dump my rubbish. The government doesn't run the environment, so it has no right to charge business for the costs it would incur if it did. The whole premise is to fine the operations of business that it doesn't like in order to subsidise businesses that it does like. Wealth redistribution and protectionism. Two things that we know are bad for economies.

Also, it is quite a leap to compare carbon dioxide emissions to slavery v:, well done.

Turn on the tap:

31 Dec 2013 6:17:06pm

"trickle down economics" is a term used by elites to delude the masses into believing they will in some way benefit from a particular economic or social structure. The only truth to the saying is contained in the word "trickle".

Percy:

John:

31 Dec 2013 9:52:40pm

No, GraemeF, you misunderstand both the fact and the English language.

If you take a load of rubbish to the tip and pay the required charge, you are paying a rubbish production tax. It is a tax on your activities. If you create no rubbish you do not pay a rubbish tax. If you create no income because of retirement or inability to work or other reason, you create no income and you pay no tax. Income tax, like rubbish tax, is a tax on your activities. A charge for the emission of CO2 is a tax on the production of CO2, regardless of what semantic juggling is undertaken

As to what constitutes a tax, according to the Institute of Chartered Accountants a tax is:

1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government and2. A fee or due levied.

Turn on the tap:

31 Dec 2013 6:20:49pm

The "consensus" was at the 2007 election. Both parties advocated pricing carbon through an ETS. It was the Minchinites and flat Earthers that changed LNP policy along with idiots such as Berg, Roskam et al.

colin67:

31 Dec 2013 6:57:53pm

All this talk about Gillard and one broken promise how many promises, backflips, has coalition GOV made and guess who is in GOV. Start thinking about the future and stop harping about the past.Gillard is not even in politics any more in case use don't know.

stj911:

31 Dec 2013 12:08:49pm

So the WMD's in Iraq Lie doesn't compare even though needless death was involved and left Iraq still in sectarian violence...Hmmm.Gillard and the LNP didn't know that both parties were on the nose and the result left no one with a majority. before the Election Gillard thought she could win by promising No Carbon Tax (a tax that disappears if you stop polluting). The New government had to form a coalition to gain power. Abbott's love of Pollution meant he couldn't befriend the Greens. This NEW government had to compromise and one of these was the Carbon Tax. Remember Rudd in 2007 was voted in by a big majority with a mandate for an ETS why aren't you fighting for that using your freedom of speech.

mortan:

31 Dec 2013 1:39:08pm

gnome: You speak of free speech and the ramifications of the reckless promise for haphazard politicians and they never learn. Abbott will now fall victim to his promise of going to the people if his carbon tax repeal is blocked.

Given the very real possibility of the lost voting boxes in WA and the subsequent new election delivering Abbott his worst nightmare a hostile senate his goose could well and truly be cooked. Yet another dim witted reckless promise destroys a political career.

v:

31 Dec 2013 3:37:31pm

gnome,

"Gillard's claim of no carbon tax under her government became the greatest broken promise ever in Australian politics a few days after it was made, because Gillard thought it would be to her advantage."

There was no broken promise. Gillard promised no carbon tax and we don't have a carbon tax. But she also promised a price on carbon and that is what we have.

Secondly, even her opponents agree that Ms Gillard was a shrewd politician and, as such, she was fully aware that her decision to HONOUR IN FULL her election commitment to carbon pricing would be used by Mr Murdoch's propaganda corps as "evidence of a broken promise". There is no way that she would have been unaware of the political risks of keeping her promise, let alone under any false apprehensions that she would benefit politically from doing the right thing.

But none of this has anything to do with freedom of political association or expression, which is what this article is about. Perhaps if you had bothered to read it, rather than simply following your daily "talking points", you would know this.

consideredview:

31 Dec 2013 11:53:11pm

@gnome: Presumably you are unhappy because a blatant attempt to cripple any opposition to your own brand of right wing politics. To disallow donations to political parties by groups or associations such as unions, or green groups etc would have been a denial of democratic rights and freedoms, and this is now enshrined in law.Whining about Gillard is not going to get you very far now, it's just more of the blame game and shows just how anti-democracy you really are.

Miowarra:

Chris Berg wrote: "The way we spend our money is sometimes a form of political expression. This apparently horrifies many people on the left."

That's actually VERY wrong, Chris. Here on "the Left" (wherever that may be in your mind) we've always known that money is power and buys political influence. We know that "money talks".

What horrifies THIS particular Lefty is the political ends for which that money is and has been spent. So far, the vast majority of political spending has been to support the Right and oppress and disenfranchise the Left.

If there's equality of opportunity, then the horror evaporates.

I may not LIKE what you (hypothetically) spend your money to support but when it's fair do's, I have nothing to complain aboutl.

Now that the High Court has struck down the O'Farrell government's attempt to "distort the political market" and "tilt the playing field" (to use economic terms with which you may be more familiar) I shall be far more confident in leaving my estate to the ALP (after I finish with it, of course).

Your next campaign needs to be the anti-freedom of association laws which state governments in Queensland, NSW and SA are bruiting or have introduced.

Realist:

31 Dec 2013 10:21:30am

The difference is that Chris wrote "the way we spend our money".

For the left it is "the way we spend THEIR money" that is the expression of politics.

There is no greater example of that than the recent six years of Labor largesse. Conservatives expect those with the will to take the risk, whereas 'the left' expect the longsuffering taxpayer to pick up the tab for every whim of a failed ideology.

General Disarray:

APM:

31 Dec 2013 12:23:08pm

'Labor big spenders, Conservatives cut back' is a 'myth'?. That is what nearly always happens in the cycle of LNP/Labor governments with few exceptions. Your myth is a myth. 'Get real'. Every time a Leftist call something a myth I know I am about to hear a bunch of bald faced lies. I respect your right to lie for your political cause, as long as you allow others the right to tell the truth that you are just making stuff up, as socialists do. You have demonstrated that your vision for free speech is a Leftist dreamtime that attacks objective reality for never ending, fact free, social revolution where outcomes don't matter and is no doubt justified by a shallow, anti-intellectual, overinflated, other worldly sense of morality that is really immoral.

General Disarray:

Glamorpig:

31 Dec 2013 12:58:10pm

"You have demonstrated that your vision for free speech is a Leftist dreamtime that attacks objective reality for never ending, fact free, social revolution where outcomes don't matter and is no doubt justified by a shallow, anti-intellectual, overinflated, other worldly sense of morality that is really immoral."

Cue flashing, scrolling banner saying, "This is what these people really believe".

Chris L:

31 Dec 2013 2:15:43pm

Yet APM it is the people suggesting Labor did well with the economy that can point toward specifics such as consistent growth, low inflation, low unemployment, no recession during a global financial crisis, plus accolades from independent (not party aligned) economists.

You refer to these verifiable indicators as lies while offering nothing to support your own opinion.... unless name calling and vague, hand-waving accusations fall under your definition of "facts".

v:

31 Dec 2013 6:03:42pm

APM,

"'Labor big spenders, Conservatives cut back' is a 'myth'?. "

This is essentially true. But it is a pretty meaningless statement when robbed of context.

Labor governments apply fiscal policy in a counter-cyclical fashion. This means that they spend more when the economy is depressed and less when the economy is "running hot". Tory governments tend to apply fiscal policy in a pro-cyclical fashion. This means that they spend more when the economy is "running hot" and less when the economy is depressed.

A good example of how these different approaches work in practice can be seen in the collapse of the Australian economy and the outbreak of "stagflation" under Fraser and Howard between 1975 and 1983, and the rapid resurgence of the economy after the 1983 election and the subsequent reversal of fiscal settings by the incoming Hawke government.

Spending when the economy is running hot and cutting back when the economy is sluggish simply amplifies the natural instability of capitalist markets, making booms more damaging and recessions deeper. But, even worse, the profligate, pro-cyclical spending of Tory governments is almost invariably directed toward social engineering projects (Health Insurance Rebate, Baby Bonus etc) rather than toward investment in productive or social infrastructure. This effectively wastes the proceeds of boom times and embeds structural costs in the budget that have to be met by future governments in less advantageous economic circumstances.

The question is not how much is spent, but when it is spent and what it is spent on.

RegH:

31 Dec 2013 8:13:55pm

Average annual increase in expenditure of Howard Governement 3.7%. Average annual increase under Rudd/Gillard 3.5%.

You obviously missed Hockey's MYEFO when he referred to Labor spending like drunken sailors. For once a journalist had the guts to point out the above figures and asked him if Labor had spent like drunken sailors, had the Howard Government spent like paralytic parrots. Hockey looked a bit embarrassed and made no response to the question.

Yes, the claim that the Coalition has been the the provider of responsible fiscal management is a myth. The IMF judged the Howard Government to be the most profligate spenders, even in comparison the Whitlam years. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html

This information will no doubt stop you peddling the conservative lie. And I don't respect your right to tell political lies. If you want to make big claims, how about you source your claims, and don't as many conservatives do, manufacture your "facts"

craig:

Nell:

31 Dec 2013 11:00:56pm

The topic as I see it is Chris Berg conflating the right to freedom of speech for the citizens of a country as expressed in the Constitution of that country, a liberal democracy, as being the same as the entitlement of wealthy corporations of whatever hue to assume that same entitlement eg a mining corporation i.e. granting personhood/citizenship to corporations (commercial for-profit enterprises), as now exists in the United States.(Wonder if they are required to pay a little taxes to have that entitlement there - keep something back from their offshore bank accounts perhaps?)

We of a leftist bent should not lose sleep over this. For all of the zillions of bucks these corporates including NewsCorp/Fox stacked up they could not still swing the US election.

But they could drive people insane with their relentless propaganda hammering people on the TV (remember the footage of that little girl sick and tired of the pre-election propaganda blitz).

Just remember that it was John Howard who took away our right to privacy in our own homes and set the dogs of advertising ringing us twelve hours a day, let google map our houses, streets and towns and to have satellite surveillance of us at our backyard barbecues - now that was new and different-and, oh yes, metadata mapping - shock and awe!

Freedom - ours are never safe in the hands of the conservatives. Berg eulogises the courts decision because it may pave the way for big buck corporates funding election campaigns for - you guessed it - the Liberal Party of Australia.

aGuy:

31 Dec 2013 2:11:11pm

I will probably be joining a union soon, but many unions have become political beasts with their own agendas. Many unions will voice opinions about such things as refugees when I would want any fee paid to be for bartering for better conditions and ensuring legal rights are upheld without going overboard for those who should be fired.

If a union is to support a party, I hope they would be able to point to very particular policies rather than a simple opinion of which is better. And these policies should reflect why the union exists in the first place.

GraemeF:

31 Dec 2013 11:16:29am

Left wing ideology didn't bring us the greatest market crash since the Great Depression. It was the unbridled greed of right wing economics and their financial influence of distorting the democratic process and getting regulations removed.

Of course right wingers try to blame the left for the latest 'market' crash by spreading lies and misinformation because lies and misinformation are 'free'. They don't have to be backed up with facts.

There is no 'risk' to a business that has a right wing government in their pocket such as mining in Australia. Those who take the 'risk' such as start ups for renewable energy are actively crushed by right wing governments as they protect old money. Old money built on the sweat and toil of workers. They rarely risk their own money. They borrow and declare bankruptcy while profits are hidden in off-shore tax havens.

Your comment shows an 1950s mindset that bares little or no resemblance to current reality.

By the way, economists all over the world have praised Labor for their handling of the GFC. Economists on the whole are capitalists. The IMF rated the previous Coalition government as the 'most profligate in Australia's history. It seems that Labor does capitalism better than the Coalition.

craig:

John:

31 Dec 2013 1:08:52pm

Are you serious, or is this simply a New Year joke?

"Those who take the 'risk' such as start ups for renewable energy..." do so with the benefit of Greg Combet's CEFC Act. And if you want to see who benefits from this largesse, have a quick look at Pacific Hydro.

Your comment "The IMF rated the previous Coalition government as the most profligate in Australia's history" is a downright lie.

The economists who praised Australia's response to the GFC also pointed out that it was mild when compared to Europe, was sheltered by our mineral exports, and that the response was extremely wasteful, with billions of dollars spent that were not needed.

GraemeF:

31 Dec 2013 1:42:25pm

There are vastly more subsidies forked out to fossil fuels than to renewables.

The IMF clearly stated that the Coalition was Australia's most profligate. It is easily proven yet you still try to deny an easily proven fact? Trying to suppress free and true speech by falsely claiming it is a lie?

J:

GraemeF, I've tried to answer this before, but the Moderator has not let my response through. So, I'll content myself with repeating the truth in the hope that you might pay attention to it.

Fossil fuels receive a very small level of subsidies compared to alternate energy sources. Check the facts, please.

Your reference:

The paper:A Modern History of Fiscal Prudence and Profligacy, January 2013.Prepared by Paolo Mauro, Rafael Romeu, Ariel Binder, Asad Zaman.

The response:Richard Eskow, of the Campaign for America's Future, criticised the IMF's "poorly-chosen label" of profligacy, saying it "demonstrates that their [the authors] grasp of language rivals their [the authors] grasp of economics."

The IMF:'This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate".

Percy:

31 Dec 2013 5:03:57pm

The biggest 'subsidy' the mining industry receives is via fuel levy rebates. As the fuel used by the industry is not used on the roads of Australia, the industry is repayed the tax that it shouldn't have paid in the first place as the levy was designed as a user pays system. The drivers pay the levy at the pump for the building/maintenance of the roads that they are driving on. It is no different to you or I receiving a tax return for paying too much income tax.

Other 'subsidies' revolve around tax concessions whereby the industry has paid for public infrastructure out of its own pocket, thereby saving the taxpayer from having to fund it. Comparing these things to the redistrubution that takes place to aid renewables is ridiculously inaccurate.

Despite the left's war on wealth creation, the mining industry still contributes more to this nation in revenues, employment, charities and local communities than any other.

Polysemantic Pete:

31 Dec 2013 12:28:01pm

Realist, perhaps you aren't aware but don't people with leftist political leanings also pay taxes? I'm confused about your comment of "THEIR money", as if you're suggesting taxpayer funds should only ever be spent on those things that suit a right-wing ideology and that roughly half the population should not expect any tax revenues to be spent on issues of concern to them?

Mr Zeitgeist:

In 2008, there was an event called the GFC which threatened the global economy with the largest recession since 1929.

The Labor government initiated a stimulus package so that the economy could function normally and thousands of people would not lose their jobs.

The GFC was NOT caused by the Left or by the Greens.

Your critique of Labor leaves me to surmise that you would have been quite happy for thousands of people to be unemployed requiring the Coalition to RAISE taxes to cope with:i) Increased welfare, ii) Greater need for law and order, iii) Increased health issues

Barge:

gnome:

31 Dec 2013 1:37:34pm

Unions are the collective representation of the rights of union officials to put prostitutes and their family businesses on the workers' credit card, to buy houses with slush funds extorted from businesses, and to gain mining leases for sale at immense profits, before and after they put themselves into parliament as Labor representatives.

GraemeF:

Kagey One:

31 Dec 2013 1:43:09pm

I'd like to use my right to free speech to say that most of these posts have nothing to do with free speech.Y'know, the main reason for students I teach failing exams is that they don't read the question properly. Second to that is getting themselves onto a line of discussion which morphs into a different shape as it goes.I also speak freely when I admit to veering off topic quite often in these columns.Discipline! people.

v:

31 Dec 2013 5:29:23pm

Miowarra,

This is not really a left/right issue. There is nothing wrong with individuals donating money to causes of their choice, regardless of whether these causes are "right-wing" or "left wing". And there is nothing wrong with individuals forming organisations like trade unions, resident action groups and the like, to promote particular causes, or with these organisations providing political support to parties of their choice.

Chris' mistake is in not distinguish between organisations formed by individual citizens for the purposes of promoting causes and corporations, which are legal and commercial instruments rather than individual citizens and therefore have no business interfering in human politics. Corporations are formed by individual human citizens for the purpose of profiting from commercial activities without taking personal responsibility for those activities or their consequences. They operate within a social and economic environment created by human beings for their own purposes and should stand or fall on their ability to operate usefully and responsibly within that environment, not on their power to influence or engineer that environment.

The critical distinction in deciding whether a particular entity enjoys or should enjoy rights to freedom of association, political expression etc. is the nature of the entity, not whether the entity supports "left" or "right" causes. People and their organisations should continue to enjoy this right, but our enjoyment of this right is threatened when we extend it inappropriately to non-sentient entities or lobby groups that they might create for their own purposes.

Reagan Country:

31 Dec 2013 9:47:05am

Great article Chris and one that demonstrates that individual and collective liberty is crucial to a democracy and a just, fair society. I might like or might not like what individuals or collective organizations say or how they spend their money, but their right to do so and the right to freedom and liberty is fundamental to our society. We are extremely fortunate to live in Australia, but we must be on guard. It's one of those things that we won't know what we've got until it's gone, so full marks to the High Court for protecting liberty via this decision.

Bruce:

31 Dec 2013 1:00:32pm

Freedom is a vexing responsibility. The freedom of rabbles to rouse on small-mindednesses that define their limited imaginations sits alongside the freedom of the masses to demand the re-definition of the entire realities they live within - which the experience of Syria, Egypt, Venezuela, the poor everywhere, and the increasingly desperate classes of people who once counted for something in modernity have found nearly impossible to convert to practical truth in the face of the very different obstacles their particular status quos have placed in their ways.

Often large-mindedness fails in the face of overwhelming small-mindedness that is supported by the powers that be as their proxy for the moment in their efforts to maintain their own control over authority.

Debates become barnyard squabbles between rival small-mindednesses that distinguish themselves from others by subtleties so erudite as to defy the wits of ordinary people or that see for and against their positions in bone-headed black and white.

In all this noise, while some great good ideas no doubt are floated even if very rarely to take any public hold, deviousness has a field day, manipulating the conversation towards their own advantages. It is called spin. It is the favoured way of the political and political-economic minds and it is the most dangerous abuse of freedom of speech and of freedom of anything.

Beware those who will not speak plainly. Beware those who stand in the shadows behind puppets and mouthpieces.

Beware of people who would have you be less than you might be but beware of delusions in what you think yourself.

Desert Woman:

31 Dec 2013 9:48:26am

The USA has strayed further into the primacy of the individual over all else which is a misunderstanding of our nature as social or group animals who depend on the group for our survival, both physical and mental. We should be working towards greater interdependence, not independence alone as we have already gone too far down that track in recent years.

Desert Woman:

31 Dec 2013 11:08:08am

My two year stint in the USA was more than enough Yank thank you and made me realize that their old cooperative traditions like barn raising had been lost. Some 'conservatives' will never be convinced but they are by no means a united bloc and a few more big losses at the ballot box may cause a few wobbles.

the yank:

31 Dec 2013 2:08:46pm

The core value in the USA is the value of the individual, period.

Having said that those I know that still live in the US value helping others. Two years is a spit in the ocean when trying to understand a people. I've been here over 30 and am still getting to understand Australians.

GJA:

v:

01 Jan 2014 8:38:17am

GJA,

"Incorrect. The tea partiers don't want to pay tax. That's the full extent of their agenda."

I wish that this were true. Unfortunately, the truth is far more sinister.

The TEA Party was established, and is funded by, by Rupert Murdoch and the Kohn Brothers. Although TEA is an acronym for "taxed enough already", the issue of taxation is simply a marketing ploy that has little to do with the real agenda of these meddling plutocrats.

Their real target is not taxation, but liberal democracy. So, although 'the yank' may be correct in his assertion that TEA Party members SEE the movement as a return to the original values upon which the United States was founded, the REAL agenda is entirely antagonistic to the high ideals of the American Revolution.

The goal of the TEA Party is to erode and eventually dismantle the fundamental building blocks of the liberal-democratic state, and to replace democracy with plutocratic rule along the lines of Mussolini's "ultimate union of corporation and state" (ie: fascism). This goal is shared with an earlier generation of American plutocrats, including George HW Bush's father Prescott, and maternal grandfather Herbert Wallace. The only real difference is that, while Bush and Wallace chose Germany as their target society, Murdoch and the Kohn Brothers have chosen to work their evil on a domestic level in the United States itself. So, in a way, you could say that WW2 and the Holocaust were merely a "dress rehearsal" of what we have to look forward to if the TEA Party achieves its real agenda.

The horrors of WW2 and The Holocaust should have taught us the dangers of populist politics and of allowing foreign corporate interference in the domestic politics of sovereign nations. The results of our most recent election here suggest that those lessons have been largely lost on the Australian people. We need to be very careful. Our civilisation and the rights and freedoms it enshrines are far more fragile than most of us imagine.

the yank:

31 Dec 2013 8:30:11pm

The Tea Party see themselves as going back to the country's original values. At present they hold around 20% of the Republicans voting power. As much as they would like people to believe they do not decide what happens in the USA.

The US also has variation of socialist parties and everything else under the sun that doesn't change much of how the government runs. It is still the basic values of the Democrats and Republicans. Though even those parties change over time.

It was once the Republicans that fought to end slavery now it is the Democrats. Nothing is simple.

RobW:

31 Dec 2013 10:35:32am

"..which is a misunderstanding of our nature as social or group animals who depend on the group for our survival, both physical and mental."

I think economists, especially neoclassical economists, should definitely consult with social psychologists a bit more, or at least look at some of their research. If they did, things like the GFC would come as no surprise. They might even develop a more complex understanding of what drives human behaviour.

v:

You are asking a bit much. Neo-classical economics arose as a reaction to advances made in classical economics by Smith, Marx and others. Classical economics was a product of the "Age of Reason" and us dedicated to studying the economy as a SYSTEM, which is, in itself, a sub-system of a much larger system called human society. This is why "classical economics" is also referred to as "political economy".

As I said, "neo-classical" economics came into being as a reaction. The particular bone of contention was the discovery by classical economists of a fundamental weakness in capitalist economies that leads to an inevitable drift toward monopoly and economic stagnation. This discovery was as unacceptable to the ideological adherents of free-market capitalism as Galileo's discovery that the Earth is part of a heliocentric solar system and is not fixed at the centre of the universe, was unacceptable to the Catholic Church. The reaction of the free-market zealots was to develop a faux-scientific "discipline" which essentially removed the economy from its broader social and historical context and thus relieved themselves of any requirement to demonstrate the validity of their dogmatic assertions in real-world situations.

Neo-classical economics works fine on paper, provided that you can protect it from any possibility of being tested against the realities of a huge and complex human society trying to survive on a small planet with strictly limited resources. So expecting neo-classical economists to take society into account is a bit much. After all, they have spent their entire academic lives locked away in university back-rooms, developing ever more artful formulae and models to protect their dogmatic belief in the perfection of capitalism from the harsh light of reality. They are hardly likely to tear down the incredible edifice of self-deception just because we ask them to, are they.

John:

01 Jan 2014 9:32:04am

Purely as a side issue, v, please do not continue to repeat this "Galileo's discovery that the Earth is part of a heliocentric solar system and is not fixed at the centre of the universe, was unacceptable to the Catholic Church" fable.

The antagonism to Galileo's discoveries and science came from the established Universities and scientific bodies of the time, not the Church.

The Catholic Church might not have agreed with Galileo, but, as with Copernicus, it was quite prepared to allow the science and the work to proceed.

ursus augustus:

31 Dec 2013 10:39:53am

In essence how about some decisions that go to our individual responsibilities instead of rights. Frankly I am a bit over the "rights" issue. We are a society with more rights than items on our supermarket shelves and are becomeing more head up our arses selfish as a consequence.

The Yanks put a "right bear arms" in their constitution and look where that has got them. The issue has been captured by a vile, extremist political cult - commercial interest alliance to toxic political effect and mass murderous consequence.

Going to the Unions NSW case , the unions are directing money that is not freely given my their members , it is largely coerced by closed shop culture, plain thuggery and the sort of standover tactics that appear to be used to provide cash to their "slush funds". Where's the freedom of exptression in that. Chris?

How about Chris Berg give us a piece of the exercise of responsibility, in the interests of balance.

Ravensclaw:

31 Dec 2013 9:50:30am

It is good to see that there are still some out there supporting the human right of free speech.

It wasn't that long ago that Nicola Roxon was our (most incompetent) Attorney General proposing who proposed new anti discrimination laws that would make opinion illegal if someone was either "insulted" or "offended", even if it was a case of "the truth hurts".

Tim Wilson was one of those that understood and fought for this human right, when our very own Human Rights body made no such effort in their submission of Roxon's legislation.

It should also be noted that the legion of paid socialist activists manipulating opinion on the discussion of Roxon's laws either defended Roxon or remained silent on the issue.

Without freedom of speech you cannot defend other human rights. Tim Wilson knew this and this was why he so passionately defended his position. the left knew this as well, which was why they so passionately remained silent.

Bev:

31 Dec 2013 10:34:32am

The left has a very one eyed view of free speech. Speech should only be free when they agree with what is said. Otherwise ban it, pillory the speaker or run a hate campaign against them. Hate actions and speech the one thing the left does well.

Bev:

31 Dec 2013 1:43:33pm

Talk about one eyed! The vilification, spite and bile unleashed against Tony and members of his government exceeds anything I saw while Labour was in power. I would have to go back to Howard to see similar.

Ravensclaw:

the yank:

31 Dec 2013 10:29:10am

Typical of you Raven... instead of talking to the issue you play the man.

Yes I supported the proposed anti discrimination legislation but why should that support then be translated into an unwillingness to listen to how Australians wish to define the concept of 'freedom of speech'.

Bev:

31 Dec 2013 11:08:12am

If you supported legislation which would have closed down much of what constitutes free speech you can hardly claim a "willingness to listen to how Australians wish to define the concept of 'freedom of speech'".

John:

31 Dec 2013 10:05:30pm

Very poor understanding, the yank.

Of course Australia has a bill of rights - it simply has not been set down in a single document so that it becomes a Bill of Rights. We have, through our inheritance of the English system of governance and process, a set of rights that are unchallengeable. Free speech is one of them. The right to silence when charged with a criminal offence is another (although that is under threat too, most recently from Bob Carr).

And that is a very good thing, because a written and fixed Bill of Rights automatically creates a Bill of No Rights. This was set out clearly some years ago when Lionel Bowen tried to implement a written set of rights. It was argued in the Courts that if, to quote the example used at the time, the Bill gave everyone the right to wear a brown hat, that automatically meant that nobody had the right to wear a hat of a different colour. That was based on the established legal rule of "specific inclusion means specific exclusion".

If you want an example of how the lunatics can benefit from a written Bill of Rights, read about Sandy Hollow.

Bulldust:

31 Dec 2013 11:14:10am

The yanks have gone so far down the road of political correctness it is embarrassing. My wife is from the US and hates it. It is relaxing to live in a country where we don't have to watch every word that comes out of our mouths for fear it may offend someone.

By and large lovely people, but their country is rapidly going to hell in a handcart (most for financial reasons of course).

Ravensclaw:

01 Jan 2014 12:36:27am

I think it is sick that someone would support legislation that presumes guilt until proven innocent. The Roxon Legislation does just that! And truth is not a valid defense should someone be "offended" or "insulted". We get enough fake outrage from you and your ilk already!

the yank:

It has always been a battle of those wanting unlimited freedom of speech and those afraid of what that might mean.

The extent of present day US government surveillance of its people is unprecedented. It is obviously driven by 9/11 and having the technology to successfully achieve such a act.

How far should a government go to protect its citizens? If the present surveillance saved lives would it have been worth it? Or do we sacrifice lives to protect our privacy?

I guess that depends on where one sits. If you or one of your family members were killed by an act of violence that could have been prevented by such invasions of your freedoms would that have made it OK?

hph:

31 Dec 2013 11:01:32am

"I guess that depends on where one sits. If you or one of your family members were killed by an act of violence that could have been prevented by such invasions of your freedoms would that have made it OK?"

Go tell that to an Afghan family sitting at home peacefully one minute and then obliterated the next, by a drone.

ingenuous:

31 Dec 2013 12:24:45pm

Hi yank. Universal surveillance is predicated on the idea that everyone is a potential 'baddie' and that potential baddies have no rights.

The USA Constitution is entirely the other way around. You have rights unless you show you are a baddie. The government is supposed to show you are at least likely to be a bad egg before they fiddle with your stuff.

I like this constitution. I think it would be a good idea if the American government followed it. And I think the world would cheer to see the NSA removed, even if those running it escaped prosecution.

reaver:

31 Dec 2013 11:19:31am

The right to free speech doesn't include the right to steal, gerard. If Snowdon and Assange hadn't been involved in stealing what they disseminated then they wouldn't have any problems with their claims to free speech.

ThatFlemingGent:

Whistleblowing and speaking truth to power is a necessity for a genuinely open society and government. This is not a new concept nor limited to the Snowdens/Assanges of the world.

Snowden and Manning had authorised access to the information they disseminated, because they believed that what was happening was ethically/morally/legally wrong and the public should be aware. Assange "stole" nothing, Wikileaks was merely a "megaphone".

You have shown that you only support certain forms of speech you find ideologically agreeable. That, my friend, comes under the term hypocrisy.

reaver:

31 Dec 2013 3:10:34pm

I support free speech, ThatFlemingGent, even that of people with whom I disagree, but free speech cannot be used to shield other acts. Snowden and Manning had authorised access to the information that they disseminated, but they had no authorisation to disseminate it. It's the same as an office worker who has authorised access to office stationary to be used at work, but who gets fired for taking it home. They are authorised to use their employer's property (Yes, information IS property) within the confines of their employment. It becomes stealing if they then take that property elsewhere. Whether Snowden and Manning thought what was being done was ethically or morally wrong is irrelevant. You don't get to disseminate your employer's information without consequence just because you don't like what they're doing. If they genuinely thought what was being done was illegal then they wouldn't have disseminated all the files that they did. They would have released the ones that they thought proved the alleged criminal activities. If they had done so then it's likely that they would have been covered by the US's whistleblower laws. It is a matter of established fact that Assange had previously discussed the matter of Manning's activities before he stole the files. As such Assange was involved in the theft.

John:

reaver:

31 Dec 2013 9:25:10pm

So, tol, you're saying that, for example, if I copy a Stephen King book, making ten million copies and selling them, that I haven't stolen from Stephen King as long as he still has the original manuscripts? Whether you are of that opinion is irrelevant as the law disagrees with that theory. The crime of theft of intellectual property, and that includes proprietary information, doesn't require the theft involve the owner of the property being wholly deprived of their property, only that the thief be in unauthorised and unlawful possession of it.

Mitor the Bold:

31 Dec 2013 8:43:48pm

"If Snowdon and Assange hadn't been involved in stealing what they disseminated"

Funny, a libertarian defending the right of a government to spy on its citizens without either knowledge or consent and then defending its right to persecute those who uncover this deceit. Reclaiming privacy isn't theft - it's a human right.

ingenuous:

31 Dec 2013 12:29:18pm

Whistle blowing should also be supported. Snowden and Assange had to expose secrets because those secrets show the authorities are and have been working against us.

I know this isn't the "free speech" that the article was describing. It's a closely related concept though. After all, why do you need free speech in the first place? Answer: so you can tell everyone the truth and then the masses can hold liars (including the government) to account.

APM:

31 Dec 2013 9:56:51am

'dressed up in woolly sentiments about enhancing democracy and reducing corruption.'

I agree with Berg and the High Court with the free speech and political communication principles here, but Berg downplays the use of inappropriate union and corporate money that has been a major corrupting influence in NSW that erodes good governance and democracy. I hope it is still possible to substantially address this without falling foul of the courts again.

It doesn't surprise me that it took a socialist organisation to achieve a freedom of speech win. I hope similar logic and principles will soon apply for individuals saying what they like without antidiscriminatory thought police to protect the anti-democratic, state defined 'vulnerable'.

gnome:

ThatFlemingGent:

31 Dec 2013 11:10:30am

"Free speech largely is freedom for people or groups with money. This decision will do nothing for those who don't already have political leverage, resources and lots of money."

This is precisely it. Given the IPA's history and it's already published points of view it is certainly not the friend of the average Australian. It will (and has, even in this article) argue for corporate personhood which has been disasterous for the US' political system, with unprecedented corporate backing of candidates pliable (if not outright bought) to that corp's interests - graft and corruption are commonplace.

It's free speech for the already privileged elite and the rest of us serfs can shut up and wear it, we're not wealthy enough to matter, we don't send lobbyists like Berg hard cash to push our points of view.

J.T:

31 Dec 2013 2:11:56pm

so only people with lots of money have political leverage...yet the stated aims of the left is to create a large and benevolent government...which the laws of complexity mean only people with immense resources will be able to navigate and corral.

The stated aim of those who advocate for those without is to grow the size and scope of government, yet you fail to understand that the larger the beast, the harder to slay.

GrumpyOldMan:

31 Dec 2013 10:02:37am

As usual with the IPA and other right-wing operatives, the word 'right' appears 9 times in Berg's article while the complementary word 'responsibility' is entirely absent.

The whole concept of 'freedom of speech' means nothing unless it is welded onto the requirement to use that right responsibly. And it is no use saying that the laws of libel and slander provide that link because the cost and inconvenience of mounting a legal defense against malicious speech is only open to the rich and powerful in this society. So 'freedom of speech' is really only effective to one small, but powerful and privileged, section of the Australian community.

For the rest of us, there is no effective defense against blatant political lies, as we have seen in the MSM during the last few years, where conservatives can freely ignore inconvenient facts, and invent their own more convenient facts that can be freely distributed through the Internet, the IPA, the Liberal Party, and an indolent MSM. And then they have the nerve to demand that 'inconvenient' facts and opinions must be balanced with their 'convenient' facts and opinions.

Freedom of speech without the responsibility to use that right in the interests of the whole community is nothing more than an open door for conservatives, and other political, religious, cultural or racial extremists, to spread their propaganda and lies to the general public.

So, my question to Berg, the IPA and Brandis is ... "how can freedom of speech be linked to the responsible use of that right without having to resort to the largely inaccessible laws of libel and slander?"

Bulldust:

31 Dec 2013 1:12:34pm

The Greens continually lie and/or distort the truth when they talk about fossil fuel 'subsidies.' The diesel fuel rebate is not a subsidy, it is less tax being paid. The definition of a subsidy is a negative tax, which the rebate is not. Nevertheless the Greens will continues to use such distortions despite being told that they are wrong. Don't get me started on the distortionary language of climate change.

So pots and kettles mate. The politicians all lie/distort regardless of their leanings. Some are simply better at disguising it and appear to be honest brokers.

John:

31 Dec 2013 3:28:30pm

TFG, no-one has claimed that seeking asylum is illegal. What has been argued is that the people entering Australia are only posing as asylum seekers because they have received, and voluntarily discarded, asylum elsewhere.

They have therefore become intending migrants. And as they enter the country without conforming to the legal requirements for migration, they are indeed "illegal entrants".

GrumpyOldMan:

31 Dec 2013 7:02:13pm

Bulldust, you completely missed the point of my post - well done!

Perhaps it is you who needs to expand your understanding of how democracy can be destroyed by people who systematically make up their own facts to suit their ideology, no matter what side of politics they support.

reaver:

31 Dec 2013 11:28:33am

The problem with your argument, GrumpyOldMan, is that you're claiming the right to decide the definition of the responsibility that you want linked to the right to free speech. You don't get to do that. You may and clearly do want to be able to decide what media outlets can and can't say based on whether you agree or disagree with what they want to say, but it doesn't work like that. You don't get to shut other people up just because you don't agree with them.

Desert Woman:

ingenuous:

GrumpyOldMan, should I be allowed to speak the truth or not? It's a plain question.

If I am allowed to speak the truth, then I can speak the truth no matter what consequences it has to society.

Personally, I think society would recover from any possible truth, no matter how short-term divisive it may be, and hence I support the idea of unrestricted free speech. Well, of truth, that is, and that may be the weak point in my views, since some people think truth is relative or malleable. Can we agree that free speech of truth should always be supported?

Applaudanum:

31 Dec 2013 5:00:47pm

(2nd attempt - I think, I've lost track)

The problem, ingenuous, is that the truth isn't always truthful.

If a broadcast news outlet were to report only violent crimes caused by attackers of one particular ethnic background to the exclusion of all others, would that still count as 'telling the truth'? Would you be okay with that? I know I wouldn't.

Then there is also the 'springboard' comment that bounces off a 'truth'. It is the difference between a matter-of-fact such as 'People of x background are twice as likely than people of y background to be put in prison for violence and drug-related offences' and 'People of x background are twice as likely than people of y background to be put in prison for violence and drug-related offences and it is your duty as a citizen to protect society from such people. You should take an iron bar to anyone you see if you think they are of that particular background. You'd be doing society a favour. We're in this together!'. While the latter statement includes a truth, the problematic part of the latter statement goes well beyond the bounds of 'matter-of-fact'.

gnome:

31 Dec 2013 11:17:01am

Is this some sort of attempt to divide and conquer?

I would have thought either would make excellent advocates for individual freedom. The hate speech directed against Tim Wilson in the last few weeks has shown us well, how little effect uninformed bile has on those who are comfortable with their intellectual position.

Paul Pott:

Applaudanum:

31 Dec 2013 5:30:43pm

If the person being criticised is on 'your' side, then it is hate-speech. If the person being criticised is on the 'other' side, then it is carefully considered and insightful (inciting pun intended) commentary.

Colmery:

dmans5:

31 Dec 2013 10:28:07am

My union fees should not go to the Labor party who have wasted the mining boom income leaving massive debt and made promises the country cant afford nor should my taxes go to the ABC s left tiresome bias .

Bev:

31 Dec 2013 11:04:11am

You get no say in what money goes to political ends. So much for democracy and your right to a say in unions. They are very undemocratic organizations and now serve mostly as a training ground for future polies.

Where's Tony:

31 Dec 2013 11:11:10am

Then give up every benefit that Unions have brought to you.Keep away from the leftist biased ABC which gives you a voice on this site.Re- the mining boom, did you just miss the Howard years or are you trying to rewrite history ? Tony is in charge now, please list his achievements since the advent of his open, competent, transparent government.The only thing I can see that he and so many of his cohorts did is line their own pockets at taxpayers expense.A stumbling, fumbling, back flipping bunch of self serving parasites if ever I saw one.

And NO I am not a leftie by any stretch of the imagination, simply someone who wants a government which does what is says and says what it does. God help Australia if this is the cream of the political crop.

behemoth:

31 Dec 2013 11:24:25am

dmans5 - are you serious! the Howard/Costello government is known internationally as the most profligate in wasting the income from the mining boom! Income of $300 Billion - left in the bank at the change of government - $30 Billion (and Costello sold all the gold reserves for a song) - where did the $270 billion go - on tax cuts and middle class welfare - a burden that is still being paid for today (and expanded on - the PPL for example. As for union fees going to Labor am I correct in assuming that you are also against large public corporations funding the LNP with donations instead of passing this onto shareholders? Remember - ALL unions (blue collar, white collar - e.g. the AMA, corporate - e.g. Chamber of Commerce - seek to influence governments through these donations.

John:

31 Dec 2013 6:36:05pm

Yes, Sceptic, an out-and-out lie.

Quarantining some or all of the country's income might suit those who have various agendas and barrows to push, but it is not the duty or responsibility of a Government to yield to those personal wishes.

The Government has to allocate funds to purposes and in pursuit of goals that it considers best.

In the case of the Howard/Costello era it was considered equitable and proper that some of the taxation levied should be returned in various ways. You might have preferred that an investments scheme should have been set up instead, but may others would not.

Reinhard:

31 Dec 2013 7:15:38pm

"The Government has to allocate funds to purposes and in pursuit of goals that it considers best."John yes i imagine the divorce courts are full of men who tried to use that kind of reasoning with their wives to explain why they bought a brand new fishing boat when they were trying to save for their kid's teeth

reaver:

31 Dec 2013 11:31:42am

Then withdraw from the union, dmans5. When you join most unions and pay your union dues you're agreeing that your earnings will be given to the Labor party or spent in support of the Labor party. If you don't want that to happen then you're free not to join the union. Unfortunately we don't have the same choice when it comes to the ABC.

Dove:

31 Dec 2013 12:28:35pm

The ABC has a left bias? How do you reckon that? Have you a coding system and have applied it to ABC articles and broadcasts? The only study I can find is one that measures the voting intentions of journalists- a rather dumb exercise given journalists don't have control over what stories are used or how they are presented. In that study, the percentage of Labor voting ABC journos was the same percentage of journos from The Australian. I think yours is a deeply defensive and paranoid view.

Skeptic:

31 Dec 2013 5:21:57pm

But how do you feel about your *taxes* going to political parties? Because how the heck do you think money is raised to pay for the salaries of individual politicians - who are members of political parties? Der.

Haggis:

31 Dec 2013 10:39:09am

Sure. Let corporations (and "think tanks" - right Chris?) say what they like. Just one proviso - disclose who's funding that opinion so the rest of us can make an informed decision about what they are saying.

Charles:

31 Dec 2013 4:47:33pm

TFG, the Grattan Institute was launched with a $15 million grant each from the Federal and VIC governments (both ALP). It is provided with a home within the University of Melbourne (another institution predominantly funded by the tax-payer). It also received some money from BHP Billiton (4 million) which I understand was then subtracted from their income tax bill (see the tax payer still gets to pay).

There are a range of public and private affiliates who apparently support it, although no data is given as to the level or amount of their support (minimal in terms of $ cash one would suspect).

Consequently, I would describe it principally as a tax-payer funded organisation with strong links to the ALP governments of various stripe.

Percy:

31 Dec 2013 11:21:58am

Really Haggis?

So every NPO should disclose a full list of all their funders? All environmental groups should release the names of all of the people that donated to them before they can make a public statement about the environment? Charities should disclose the names of all their doners before they can make a public statement about welfare? Pedestrian groups likewise? Motoring enthusiasts, hunting advocates, surf lifesaving groups......the list goes on.

Or perhaps it is just the free market think tanks that must disclose this information?

why not:

31 Dec 2013 10:51:16am

Isn't it time that Australia has a referendum to change the constitution to have a Bill of Rights? To expressly state Freedom of Speech rather than wait around and rely on what is interpreted to be implied and all that dithering wasting time and money. Courts depend on who the judges are in that time and place, the constitution is always there.

Sholto Douglas:

31 Dec 2013 5:16:30pm

That's the theory of a Bill of Rights. Alas it is not the practice. The most egregious examples of denial of free expression in Europe and Canada have sprung from a tribunal or judge interpreting such a Charter or Bill how they please. Unless, as in the US First Amendment, freedom of speech is a black and white absolute, activists can easily subordinate this right to, say, the right not to be offended.For example the British bill merely stipulates that a judge must 'give consideration to' free speech. Well we have seen how much consideration some judges, especially left wing ones, give to that. Not very much.

Percy:

01 Jan 2014 7:58:03am

A fine idea why not, but would you trust any government that we have recently had in this country to draft a Bill of Rights?

Most countries that adopt Bills or Charters of Rights nowadays base them around the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which says what Governments must guarantee their people. Nothing regarding what they must not do to them. Vastly different in practice to the US version that attempts to guarantee the people certain protections from Government.

Alison Cann:

Cobbler:

31 Dec 2013 11:02:26am

Let's hope that this sentiment extends to the public service as well with the removal of the draconian changes to the public service code of conduct that prohibits public servants, who are citizens just like everybody else with the right to vote and who pay taxes, to criticize government policy that doesn't relate specifically with their job or their department.

lazarus:

31 Dec 2013 5:47:59pm

So someone employed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shouldn't be able to voice an public opinion about defence spending because they are a public servant? Or someone in Defence about Centrelink rules?

Cobbler:

albywil:

31 Dec 2013 11:03:53am

Some thoughts.Sure,give people the freedom to speak as a person, but why groups of people since each individual also has the freedom? It is like double dipping.However, balance this against the fact the some people have much greater resources at their disposal so it is then logical to allow groups of less well resourced people to pool their resources. I am all for this but do not agree with small portions of fees that are paid to an organisation substantially for some other activity being diverted to political activity.One of the best compromises is to ensure transparency.

Dave:

31 Dec 2013 11:07:04am

After reading this piece, I realise that free speech a la Chris Berg does not exist for science. At least, that's what guides to responsible conduct for scientist seem to say say. and the contrast is stark when viewed against what Chris Berg seems to have said. Truth is given prominence in science. Should it be an optional extra elsewhere?

Chookman:

31 Dec 2013 11:23:51am

With every right and with every freedom comes a responsibility that it is used in a way that does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others in the process. A person's right to free speech does not carry an inalienable right to offend, demean or bully another, for example the use of racial prejudice and misogyny to do so is not implicit in the freedom of speech. It is intriguing that Mr Berg is not taking Campbell Newman to task for his "bikie laws" in Queensland, which are infringing on right to associate.

gerard oosterman:

APM:

31 Dec 2013 12:53:09pm

The 'hard working team at the ABC Drum of opinions', has spent another year actually blocking freedom of speech with blatant political bias in the choice of articles (author's and topics) and moderation that deliberately thwarts views that are not of a Green/Labor Left persuasion. For example, I think its safe to say now that 100 percent of the hundreds of asylum seeker articles on The Drum in 2013 were effectively in favour of an open border in spite of the majority of Australians who believe otherwise. Thus the Drum has an entrenched Leftist paternalistic culture that seeks to shape public attitudes in favour of Leftist obsessions, rather than being a genuine space for Australians to have their say, being not even vaguely representative of views in the general community. It is a Drum for a minority, and oppressive and implicitly disdainful of the rest of us. As a result the ABC little legitimacy as a public broadcaster.

Dove:

31 Dec 2013 1:15:50pm

You managed to squeeze your post past your fantasy gatekeepers, APM. I wonder why that is? But you can do me a favour- could you post a link to an article on The Drum advocating open borders. Just one. Now I know there have been plenty criticising all kinds of government policies and practises from all kinds of perspectives....but I'm looking for one, just one, that advocates actual open borders. Good luck.

sea monster:

31 Dec 2013 8:04:36pm

I find it funny or frustrating depending on my mood. 'The Left' and 'The Right' equally convinced that The Drum is conspiring against them. Perhaps I should add disgusted to my mix of emotions. Ultimately they're expressing their own intolerance and authoritarianism.

I lurked at a place where 'The Left' would bemoan being moderated on The Drum. It was obvious to me that they were falling foul of abuse criterea but were blind to it. Some of them were extravagent racists and falling foul on those grounds. Again totally blind to it.

Luckily I have enough self awareness to know when I'm pushing the limits so I'm not as mystified or enraged. Usually its cause I'm being a deckhead.

APM:

31 Dec 2013 11:10:56pm

Put the moderating aside and justify why the views of most Australians on asylum seekers is never heard in the articles themselves. How can a public broadcaster have a default to just write off the majority as 'extravagent racists'? The Lefts' disappointment at not being able to abuse me more is not equivalent to the Rights' expectation that their views are actually represented. The Left just assume the ABC is their turf (which it is) and want to maintain their privilege. They want to bully and exclude. The Right just expects a fair go. That is democratic and fair.

NikMak:

31 Dec 2013 8:19:11pm

I have a particular problem with that argument about a left bias in article selection on this site.

Ignoring for a moment the entirely subjective nature of that label "left" and the difficulty in applying it, "The Drum" is not an editorial wing of the ABC news website - its a collection of independent opinions.

The ABC doesn't commission articles for "The Drum". hopeful writers submit their articles to be selected by the website, or occasionally the website republishes noteworthy articles that have been disseminated elsewhere. You are entitled to believe that the ABC rejects any articles they don't agree with, but you have very little proof. In fact the mere presence of well reasoned, so called "right-wing" articles seems to debunk the theory adequately enough. Of course, If someone has proof of a bias in article selection, I would happily reconsider my position.

What does Ockham's Razor say - The simplest explanation is often the right one... The simplest explanation to me is that aren't many so-called "right-wing" writers willing to submit articles to this website.

craig:

Hudson Godfrey:

31 Dec 2013 12:04:12pm

Whereas it is true that ideas are equal to their merit and the freedom to engage in good speech can hopefully outweigh the error of indulging in bad speech, that notion only addresses the content of competing views. The problem we still have is that of a considerable lack of competition in the dissemination of those views. Rupert Murdoch's paywalled empire, network television, talk radio, and even the ABC for our few pennies a day aren't offering free and unfettered access to the masses in opposition to those lobby groups and shock jocks whose opinion masquerading or conflating itself with journalism typically floods the airwaves.....

That's one kind of free speech, the kind that Brandis changed the law to allow Andrew Bolt to have against all rhyme or reason as to who ought to have the law on their side and who shouldn't.

Then there are political donations and the rather American notion that corporations are individuals and therefore have the right to make large donations to political parties. And whereas I see Unions and other groups of people outside the corporate world having a valid role in galvanising political opinion there's a salient difference when the money being collected and donated to politicians has the very real potential to cross from being an expression of people's political will to a calculated attempt at corruption. I think we have to be very careful indeed to avoid crossing that threshold.

ingenuous:

31 Dec 2013 12:42:35pm

I think I've put my finger on the basic error underlying the idea that corporations are individuals for the purposes of donations and free speech.

Chris Berg says corporations are just groups of people. But the group does not democratically select what it wants the corporation to say or do. Instead, a small group does this. This small group is in charge of a much greater amount of money (and reputation) than they have as individuals. And it is this small group that directs the corporation for purposes of donations and commercial speech.

So, it's a trick after all. Corporations are made of people, but the people by and large get no say. Only a few at the top get a say and that's amplified by the weight of the corporate resources. In short, it's yet another way for the rich and powerful to amplify their desires at the expense of the rest of us.

Any ruling that puts corporate rights on the same level as individual rights must be reverted. And that may include the current court ruling that Mr Berg is praising.

Hudson Godfrey:

31 Dec 2013 1:41:17pm

If you break down my original post into opportunity, means and motive then the main aspect of my objection to corporate political influence is clearly the last of those three, it's motive. What motivates corporations to donate may not be so much an expression of collective political will as it is the economic rationalist's imperative to serve a profit motive that I think most would deem a corruption of the social contract that informs proper democratic process.

Mitor the Bold:

01 Jan 2014 4:46:53am

Corporations are even able to use free speech (in the sense of donations and lobbying) to work against the interests of their 'people' as individuals by, for example, opposing regulations designed to protect people (anti-smoking, anti-pharma protections etc). This harms the executive team and other employees as much as it does you and I.

CEOs and other senior execs are actually compelled by law to act in the best (financial) interests of shareholders, with the effect that they cannot exercise their conscience where this might deliver a less profitable outcome than to do otherwise. Tobacco CEOs are not immoral when they obfuscate medical info - they are just doing their jobs in the way the law compels them to.

So, you might feel inclined to vote for Tony because you're well-off and his party will make you more well-off, but your conscience tells you not to as you have enough dosh and Bill says he'll build more state schools. As an individual you can make that decision. As a CEO you would be breaking the law to make an analogous corporate decision.

A corporation (or a union) can never be a 'morally autonomous individual' and the interests of such an organisation will rarely take account of its environment or the human beings it affects, beyond how much money it can make from them.

ingenuous:

Free speech is as fundamental a right as I can think of. A Bill of Rights protecting this fundamental human right is long overdue in Australia.

However, if this can be interpreted as giving corporations unrestricted commercial speech (that is, unrestricted advertising plus unrestricted factual distortion) then we have utterly failed.

I am now stymied. On the one hand, as individuals, we need free speech to have any of the other freedoms. On the other hand, we need strong controls to restrict what corporations can do to us.

Would you accept cigarette companies advertising to children as the price for acknowledgment of your individual freedom to say what you believe? I certainly cannot see that as a useful tradeoff.

In the end I think it cannot be true that a corporation is a "person" simply because people are in it. If we clearly state that corporations are not persons then we can individually have free speech without the down side of permitting unrestricted commercial exploitation.

If I have gained one insight from this IPA article, it is that considering corporations as people is a fundamental error and cannot be accepted in our legal system.

maj:

Ingen: You will forever be confused so long as you try to impose your own particular version of 'good' speech vs 'bad' speech. It is not up to you to determine the prerequisites of free speech.

Passing laws does not, and never can, make something (anything) mandatory on a population for anything but trivia.

The presumption that all is permissible unless it's not works for me. By the time a person is an adult they will already largely have had 18 years to develop an internal code of behavior that suits the society.

Bubblecar:

31 Dec 2013 12:20:21pm

"a country where free and morally autonomous individuals mutually consent to democratic government."

That would be nice, but it raises the question: what if they don't? There are groups and individuals in Australia - particularly religious groups and individuals - who don't actually favour liberal democracy at all, and would like to replace it with a theocracy controlled by Sharia law or by Christian tenets dictated by the Bible etc. The question of how a liberal, secular democracy should respond to its sworn enemies, when those enemies are some of its own citizens, is actually an important one. It can't just be assumed that such problems will "sort themselves out" via free speech and open debate. Britain is an example of a failed multicultural state in which anti-liberal, anti-secular, anti-democratic forces are continually and successfully advancing their agendas, aided and abetted by confused liberals who have failed to understand that "multiculturalism" and its cultural and ethical relativism are incompatible with safeguarding the principles of liberal, secular democracy. Australia alas is likely to go down the same path.

blax5:

"... recognition of the human right to freedom of speech and freedom of association: the sort of uncompromising liberties expressly found in United States' First Amendment."

This is, and probably even must, be on the way out as it is abused in the US.

The King Plaza Shopping Mall in Brooklyn was overrun by 400 (yes, four hundred) youths days ago. Although nobody got killed, the violence and damage was considerable. It seems to be part of their new 'knockout' culture. Here, the right to freedom of association is abused as they associate for this activity through social media with the clear intent to do harm.

I have read compliants in fora that the media in the US sweep these events (and the latest one is not new, probably only the biggest in terms of number of perpetrators) under the carpet. The assumed reason is that these flash mobs are (mostly?) black, so the press cannot report the complete truth - so they say.

Facts in this category, will they fall under freedom of speech? And what will happen to freedom of association when that one is abused as well, by bikies and youths?

They might as well not bother with these rights as soon enough they'll be abused and will be trimmed back.

BBSS:

31 Dec 2013 12:36:18pm

Freedom of speech is the birth right of every living soul on earth.But like justice it is nothing more than a commodity to be bought or sold by those who can afford to do so. Nothing changes except the illusion.

Mitor the Bold:

31 Dec 2013 12:50:48pm

Freedom of speech isn't as important as freedom of thought. Not many of us know how to think - not really think critically and analytically with a full grasp of all the relevant facts. In that sense we're all vulnerable to the freedom that corporations, unions and lobbyists have to freely manipulate facts, half-truths and complete untruths to peddle one ideology or another.

We all know how the media can make villains out of the innocent or martyrs out of crooks because their freedom to speak loudly, prolifically and without regard to the facts shapes how we think, so it's not too much of a stretch to understand how corporations can use this kind of power to, for instance, avoid paying tax while making billions (think Google, Amazon, Vodafone etc) yet lead our govts to think that they're a force for good. Poor people marched, for example, so that Gina didn't have to pay so much tax.

Corporations are not people. If their ends are desirable then let individual people decide so - special interests should not have special access to power or disproportionate influence over democracy. Groups are not the 'demo' in democracies - individual human beings are. I reject the conceit that corporations and unions are 'morally autonomous individuals'. These are 'special interests' and act disproportionately in only their own special interests at the expense of us all.

Val Doxan:

The idea that either complete freedom of speech and association, or, heavily restricted freedom of speech and association is a good thing, seriously misses the complexities of the issues.

In addition, "researchers" from the IPA arguing anything about free speech and association is not well considered, peer-reviewed output from an independent organisation (or "think-tank" if you prefer).

The IPA, like most astro-turf organisations are funded by very large corporations to argue for reduction of all government controls on people and corporations. That is what the IPA, including Chris Berg and formerly Tim Wilson are paid to do.

For a good laugh, read this ripper from the Senate Estimates earlier on this year.

Peter of Perth:

31 Dec 2013 12:55:23pm

Why is it I wonder that, no matter what the conversation is about on this, (their ABC) site, within just the first few comments it is taken down to the level of pure rubbish and hatred by many 'contributors' towards the Abbott government from so many who are doing nothing constructive, simply taking a free kick at a government that has only been in office 3 months because you haven't yet accepted why Labor was given the big push.So many hide under their rock and slide out to take their kick and then slide back out of sight without having contributed anything of value except vitriolic rubbish. Well, Abbott haters, get used to it guys because even with the few small hiccups, as is the case with every new government, this one is doing well and will be around for a couple of terms at least. Now, out you come.

Dove:

31 Dec 2013 1:18:06pm

"...pure rubbish and hatred...doing nothing constructive, simply taking a free kick...slide out to take their kick and then slide back out of sight without having contributed anything of value except vitriolic rubbish"

lazarus:

31 Dec 2013 4:48:36pm

Labor actually went to their elections with crafted policies that explained their position, not 3 word slogans or "me too" and "We're not Labor, vote for us".

The level of incompetence in the Libs has been on show since Abbott went to Indonesia and grovelled for forgiveness, followed by a similar effort in Malaysia and has gone downhill ever since. An NBN that has double in price, delivered 3 years later than planned with less upload and download speed than promised.Gonski Lite, 4 year funding not 6.NDIS lite it would seem as well from all reports.Budget blowout of $17 bil and more than doubling of credit card debt to $667 bil.

If they weren't chronically incompetent it would make a wonderful satire.

FalKirk:

jim:

31 Dec 2013 12:59:00pm

There are a few ways of looking at it. Did 18c need to be pulled or just applied appropriately? That the bounds of the US system is in these matters is no rejoicing matter. There is only 18 % covered by unions these days, pets, pampered or owned and have no concerns of the lower or have the power let alone will to tend them. The country is being governed from the middle class up and for the middle class up, till the heights starts chewing on them too under media veils of silence on the matter. The one percent have their workers , spinners and manipulators here in fields where it matters for them. Our markets and common wealth have such accurate and overbearing honing , the benefit of them totally bypasses the people and increasingly by the month to the heights. We the people are , as markets have been made from over empowerment, cunningly applied freedoms for some, spying and computer honing and representation oversight, an ever quickening profit turnover for corporate and political criminality.

TiPoole:

Tamarra:

"And just because people get together to form organisations doesn't mean they lose their rights once they have"

Nobody loses their rights by forming an organisation. They still maintain all their individual rights, which they always excised, such as they are in Australia.

The rub lies in Berg trying to weasel in corporate civil rights for pressure groups as if corporations were natural people. The fact is that forming an organisation doesn't create a new entity with civil rights separate from those of the members, which can be exercised independently from theirs.

Corporations and artificial personhood are a trick invented by capitalists to avoid any legal responsibility for their actions. The myth of Limited Liability is there to allow shareholders and Company Officers to be able to act without any answerability for damage or debt they cause in the world.

In the modern age they are the chief instrument of top down class warfare to help one percenters escape individual responsibility in the world.

Corporations are terrified that when their Party inevitably goes a step too far and government changes, the liberal revenge legislation preventing Unions donating will be used to hamper Corporate ability to buy government in the way the Americans do.

We do need a proper entrenched Bill of Rights , one that gives natural persons rights. We do not need enabling legislation to permit Corporate interest to extend their class warfare buy purchasing our governments.

rudy:

rumpole:

31 Dec 2013 2:56:12pm

I can see problems with unlimited freedom of speech. If someone says that in his opinion "the Parliament needs a bomb planted in it", should his right to say this be unrestricted, or would this be an incitement to violence ?

Should instructions for making pipe guns or digitally printed weapons be allowed on the internet unrestricted ? The mere printing of these details does not incite anyone to do bad things with the information, but this could happen.

There are so many things we could say that would not be in the public interest, so where do you draw the line ?

John:

Jerry:

31 Dec 2013 4:34:24pm

It is disappointing that the debate of freedom of speech here is limited to a focus on the US. Freedom of expression legislation or constitutional support exists in a wide range of countries. It is a subject of important United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights yet all we get is a discussion of the US. Why not consider the European union"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises." Article 10 ECHRRestricting discussion to the US instantly focuses the debate on money and puts an economic twist on the discussion. The underlying principles are lost in a discussion of who can express their opinion by spending money. In this sort of debate there is no freedom of speech for the poor. It is a debate about letting the powerful be powerful.

Rights of Freedom of expression must include the right to be heard. Current media ownership laws and the censoring of debates by the large media companies ensure that many are not heard. We have seen the suppression of the rights of victims of sexual assault at the hands of the Catholic and Anglican churches, by requiring silence clauses in pitifully small compensation payouts.

If Australia is to progress its freedom of expression it should focus on ensuring the ability of the weakest to speak alongside the strongest. It should require balanced media coverage and winding back of media concentration. In the political arena, political parties should receive public funding and there should be no political donations, because it is antidemocratic to provide more influence to the rich. We have already seen the way in which corporations manipulate politicians and political parties.

The flaw in Berg's analysis is that he fails to understand that global corporatisation does more to suppress freedom of expression and action than any other factor. The NSW decision fails to come to the grips this problem and any US based approach to the issues will lead further into the corporate authoritarianism that plagues the world. Lets work on the right to be heard.

stephen:

31 Dec 2013 5:15:21pm

Rather than on ... 'spending money' the curbs on this freedom might deform the 'making' of such.

Such rights, though, can be harmful when they are censured or withheld completely ; isn't that why, now, with the introduction of Labor's earlier so-called reforms, that this subject is so controversial ? But so far, our High Court has delivered a response in the affirmative : that the curtailment of such freedoms is inimical to a Liberal Democracy ... so, what's the punch-line ?It is this Court that will decide upon the legality of the proposed legislation. And we know that Abbott's government is sympathetic to free speech.Case closed.

hph:

31 Dec 2013 6:08:38pm

Jerry,

Under the provisions of NAFTA's Chapter 11 and its progeny in other international agreements, foreign investors can sue governments in special international tribunals when they believe a government action has treated their investment unfairly or otherwise interfered with their investment. The judges are private lawyers, and the proceedings are frequently closed to the public. The tribunals' decisions are automatically binding on the governments and generally cannot be appealed. Because each tribunal's interpretation of the investment rules influences subsequent tribunals, each decision sets a precedent that may apply worldwide.

Corporations' interpretation of these investment rules establishes a system akin to legalized extortion: governments can only protect against an environmental or health threat posed by the activities of a foreign investor if they are willing to pay the investor to remove the threat. Even defending the most frivolous claim -which usually requires hiring private U.S. or European lawyers- can be beyond the means of many developing countries, dooming many regulations before they are even implemented.

Decisions ordering governments to pay millions of dollars to foreign corporations have not stemmed the tide of nations adopting these investment rules. To the contrary, the United States and other governments are pressing for the inclusion of the rules in numerous new free trade agreements, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement, which would apply to every nation of the Western Hemisphere but Cuba.

According to World Bank economists, developing nations can attract foreign investment without accepting the rules presently being advocated by multinational corporations. Nations must adopt investment rules that explicitly guarantee their ability to protect the environment and other fundamental public values. Human rights should always take precedence over corporate profit. Here, I'd like to respond to Ravensclaw's earlier comment above: Tim Wilson not only defends Free Speech but also Free Trade. This is from his web page timwilson.com.au : "We shouldn't be turning our backs on free trade! Since Kevin Rudd's absurd attack on neo-liberalism every nutbag has thought it acceptable to attack free trade. And it is my job to defend it."

reaver:

31 Dec 2013 9:36:48pm

The right to freedom of expression cannot include the right to be heard, Jerry, as it would be removing a core element of other people's right to free expression, specifically the right to walk away and not listen to you. The basis of the right to free speech is to be able to speak without the government stopping you. There is no equivalent and attached right to have the government force people to listen to you. If you want people to listen to you then you have to present them with a convincing argument or at the very least something that they want to hear. You can't just complain that no one wants to listen to you and claim that you have some phantom right to be heard. If people don't care what you have to say and don't want to listen to you then they don't have to.

rumpole:

01 Jan 2014 8:57:41am

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. "======================================

"Information and ideas". A very broad definition. What about information on how to make drugs, weapons and other devices which may be contrary to public safety ?

Barnesy:

Reinhard:

31 Dec 2013 5:22:10pm

Unions are the collective representation of the rights of workers to fair pay and conditions and a safe work environment, yet conservatives conveniently try to paint them as just another special interest lobby group.This was a crystal clear example of a Coalition govt attempting to erode the rights of citizens to fair representation. Another example is the funding of the NSW Environmental Defender's Office that was slashed by the O'Farrell state govt and now the Abbott govt also plans to slash federal funding contributions

Jan Jeltes:

31 Dec 2013 6:21:16pm

That's an interesting perspective the high court has there. So, fundamentally, money equates to speech, from which it follows that speech equates to money. The next thing that is rather surprising is that there is, ostensibly, a relationship between personal individual autonomy and liberal democracy. Where did that come from then? Is that a given, or are us plebs allowed to argue that point as well?Firstly, if - in the high court's opinion, money and speech are related then the corporation with the fattest wallet has the greatest say, no? Isn't that diametrically opposed to the stated intent of the philosophical foundations that underpin liberal democratic principles? Secondly, and in brief, I cannot for the life of me see any connection between individual autonomy and liberal democracy. Freedom of speech for those who vote, and an obligation to present the unbiassed truth on the part of those who are placed in a position of leadership, perhaps; but nothing at all to do with individual autonomy.

john smith:

31 Dec 2013 7:07:27pm

What a crap article by this IPA lackey,it is just his way of softening us up when Brandis changes the Act so their mate Bolt can spew his homophobic and racists rants against anybody he likes or dislikes,go and try con somebody else it doesn't work on me.

foxlike:

31 Dec 2013 8:18:22pm

What is the difference between 'commercial' speech and the speech of thinking human beings? Any distinction serves only to provide the opportunity for commercial entities to abuse freedom of speech and communication to achieve commercial ends. We have enough of that abuse already, the case in point being the abuse of freedom of the press by various Murdoch organisations to destroy an elected government, not just through promoting fear and lies, but refusing to publish factual information.

The freedom of speech reflected in this website alone shows that there are many who regard it only as the right to abuse, insult, degrade, and lie about others, without themselves being subject to any restraint, (including self-restraint) or the need for accuracy, honesty, or rational thought!

StBob:

Mitor the Bold:

31 Dec 2013 9:00:12pm

"But corporations are made of people."

Corporations are made of people, but it would be wrong to say that those people all share the corporation's point of view. Therefore, the corporation's claim to personhood and a right to free speech is predicated on a falsehood: the corporation does not represent the views of the people it is made from - just a few of the people with an immediate financial interest in a particular outcome, eg the CEO, executive team and some shareholders. Even then it might only represent their legal fiduciary obligations rather than their opinions as 'morally autonomous individuals'.

Does Philip Morris have a moral right to the kind of free speech that influences elected politicians to fight its corner when obfuscating medical facts about the link between smoking and cancer? How much free speech money can a cancer sufferer spend in a News Ltd outlet to support his view that cigarettes are an inherently hazardous substance marketed as a fun, social lubricant and luxurious indulgence?

janama:

31 Dec 2013 10:22:04pm

I have a problem with this.

If I voluntarily contribute money to Greenpeace I know what Greenpeace stands for and can anticipate their political intention and would expect they will contribute some of my donation to their political party of choice as it's probably the same one I support.

But if I vote liberal and are forced to join a union, like the car workers, I expect that union to support me in my employment and my working conditions. I don't expect them to use my donated money to pursue their political agenda and donate my fees to a party I don't support.

The unions have no right to use compulsory worker donated fees to support a political party. That is not what a union is established to do.

If you want to support the Labor party or any party then join the party and donate to it's cause.

Wayne G:

31 Dec 2013 11:13:23pm

In balance, I would cringe at the thought of Australian laws becoming a clone of US law. Your article meandered around the 1st amendment in US law, we are not the US, and most thinking Australians are very grateful for that. Our Judiciary is there to interpret law (although are not accountable so some room for improvement there), our Parliament makes the law - the Judiciary and more generally the legal fraternity sometimes forgets that.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.